JFS is god like.... do not be fooled about XFS... JFS has the best io speeds, file system checks, and stability out of any of the other file systems i have tested. it is a "tip/trick" to use JFS instead of default ext file systems. JFS is from IBM...

Ext4 has done well for me recovering from power outages due to the wonky aftermarket battery I have in my laptop. Its improvements over ext3 include journal checksums and fast fsck (minutes instead of hours).

No love for Btrfs? Personally I prefer and have been using on my Arch "laptop" for about a year and a half now with no issues.

The snapshots and file compression are really nice. I finally converted my ext4 partitions to it a few days ago and copied back everything to make use of compress=lzo (basic 'general use real time' compression) and have been blown away by the readback difference on this gentoo box, a good example I found straight away was that after running eix-sync, eix-update was called as per usual and instead of taking almost/over 30 seconds to go through nearly 160 dirs it now takes less then 15 seconds - I could not bold that enough if I tried.

Last edited by GFCCAE6xF on Thu May 23, 2013 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total

Edit, I just realized a very big mistake, I actually meant to type less then 15 seconds eg, better then 50% better. Let me correct that!
Edit 2, If you are interested, a second read of all that data takes less then 1 second though.

Do not deceive yourself, you cannot have great performance and ability to cope with power outages at the same time.

Sure, you can. In theory, this is not an issue at all as has been proved by Reiser4. It is a question how good it is implemented in the filesystem. The journal implementation in ext4 of course means performance loss since it implies duplicate write. I do not know how clever it is implemented btrfs, jfs, xfs, although I can imagine that btrfs does not need duplicate write, either.

Do not deceive yourself, you cannot have great performance and ability to cope with power outages at the same time.

Sure, you can. In theory, this is not an issue at all as has been proved by Reiser4. It is a question how good it is implemented in the filesystem. The journal implementation in ext4 of course means performance loss since it implies duplicate write. I do not know how clever it is implemented btrfs, jfs, xfs, although I can imagine that btrfs does not need duplicate write, either.

Wow. ReiserFS can do all that. It is clearly above laws of nature then.

If you have no clue how filesystems work and how things can be implement (and in fact in some filesystems are implemented this way; perhaps also in btfr, jfs, xfs - as I said, I don't know how it is there) - I suggest that you keep off the discussion instead of spreading silly nonsense and calling experiences from a bad implementation even a law of nature.

After having worked with ZFS, others seem quaint with regards to ease of administration. It's one of those things that now that it exists, it is somewhat obvious and surprising nobody thought of/implemented it earlier. Use case technical merits of others notwithstanding._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

After having worked with ZFS, others seem quaint with regards to ease of administration. It's one of those things that now that it exists, it is somewhat obvious and surprising nobody thought of/implemented it earlier. Use case technical merits of others notwithstanding.

I concur.

Only drawback - I have PORTDIR on /var.. /var on zfs... on 5400rpm disks... and it makes emerge -auv world fucking freaking slow...._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

Only drawback - I have PORTDIR on /var.. /var on zfs... on 5400rpm disks... and it makes emerge -auv world fucking freaking slow....

Yeah, I haven't used it on Linux yet, so I'm not sure how to get around that issue. On Solaris db servers, I've seen arc_cache used to improve performance (from unusable, to production useable). I'm not certain if it would help in this situation. Though I'm not sure if /var in general is an advantage on ZFS (PORTDIR certainly)._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Under Linux the major drawback of zfs is the same as that of Reiser4: It is not really supported in the official kernel and probably never wlil. Due to this drawback, I would recommend none of these two. btrfs is the substitute for zfs which is supposed to be used on linux instead, and AFAIK it should have comparable features. Or does anybody know something crucial missing in btrfs but available in zfs?

Under Linux the major drawback of zfs is the same as that of Reiser4: It is not really supported in the official kernel and probably never wlil. Due to this drawback, I would recommend none of these two. btrfs is the substitute for zfs which is supposed to be used on linux instead, and AFAIK it should have comparable features. Or does anybody know something crucial missing in btrfs but available in zfs?

not having the "copies" feature in btrfs compared to ZFS is a deal-breaker for me:

I'm not using raids - so nevertheless having several copies of most-valuable data on one disc at the same time with checksumming not prone to hash collisions is a clear win (+ additional backup drives of course) and in my opinion is a no-brainer

this ensures that there's possibly no loss of those - ever (virtually at least)

to contribute to the topic (JFS):

I just re-tried it a few weeks ago and there were some issues with it kind of "looping" / "spinning" while backing up several directories via rsync

either it took very long to complete or I was too impatient and interrupted and re-started the job where it eventually finished

other issues I had with it (several years ago) was data loss (on /home), data corruption & loss after hardlock/not shutting down properly (on root) and some other

besides that it was pretty fast, low on the CPU, efficient in storage and some other points

this could have changed meanwhile but I'm back to ext4, xfs and ZFS as major filesystem types

btrfs misses basic features and despite all the time spent on it and all the promises is still an unstable mess.
Thanks a lot. ZFS on the other hand just works. You set it up - and forget about it._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males